Is GC.com allowing virtual and locationless caches or are they still blocking these?_________________Well the first days are the hardest days, don't you worry any more
'Cause when life looks like easy street, there is danger at your door
Think this through with me, let me know your mind
Wo-oh, what I want to know is, are you kind?

Is GC.com allowing virtual and locationless caches or are they still blocking these?

Virtuals are permitted in National Parks and various locations that physical caches are not permitted (State Parks in MN). Earthcaches are a specific type of virtual that are allowed but they require quite a bit of research and work before they can be approved.

Locationless caches are not permitted under any circumstances currently. Supposedly Jod is working on a seperate section of the site (like benchmarks are) that will support locationless caching._________________Sad state of affairs.

Here is a reply I received from CG.com last month when I stated I may not renew my membership in June due to locationless and other issues I have. It remains to be seen what they will do.

Your assumption that we are not interested in solving the locationless
problem is incorrect. We are currently working on a solution and should be prepared to release a new system for handling locationless and virtual
caches within a short time (certainly before you upgrade in June). The
reason we have not approved any new locationless caches since 2003 is
because the site was not capable of handling caches that consistently
receive thousands of logs per cache page. Please be patient and check the forums for updates. I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Virtuals are permitted in National Parks and various locations that physical caches are not permitted (State Parks in MN).

This isn't even really accurate anymore. Virtual I submitted for a State Parks was denied. The reason given was some subjective scenic wow factor needs to be met. I was told to turn it into a leg of a multi that would have an actual physical cache somewhere. (In otherwords, require a person to travel miles out of the State Park after a significant hike to get to the virtual location.)_________________I am amazed by how many people harp on the need to speak and write English in this country while exhibiting a fundamental lack of skills in the areas of spelling and sentence composition. Would this be irony, hypocrisy, or both?

AFAIK Jeremy had said before waymarking.com came up that he wasn't going to change the locationless and virtuals as they stand now, but I was under the impression that the locationless caches would all be getting archived.

All Locationless and Virtuals can not longer be created and they are all eventually going to get movved over the Waymarking.com.

This was on the waypoint page:

What happens to all the old locationless caches?

If you are a Premium Member and own a locationless geocache, we invite you to create a category on Waymarking.com. Once you have created your category we ask that you archive the geocaching.com listing to avoid confusion. Should you decide not to create a new category, your locationless cache listing will be grandfathered and remain as it is until you decide to archive it. No future locationless caches will be listed on the geocaching.com website.

What about virtual caches?

No new virtual geocaches will be listed on Geocaching.com, but if there is a suitable category for submitting your location on waymarking.com, please feel free to submit a new waymark. If you are a Premium Member and no category exists, you can create a new category for posting your waymark.

Me, I haven't gone after a locationless in a long while, but I still feel I worked to get the ones I got, and it'd suck if they took them out of the find count. I suppose if they did though, I'd just augment my finds with some park and grabs and just backdate them to correct the problem.